Reading mode: Light Dark

16-80mm (on DX) vs 24-120mm (on FX)

Go to last post
N

nbirkett

Senior Member
Messages
2,003
Solutions
3
Reaction score
828
Location
Ottawa/Ontario, CA
I currently have a D7200 with 16-80mm lens as my main lens. I like the quality of the images and the range fits my common travel needs.

I am considering buying a full frame (maybe a D750) as a gift and am thinking about lenses. The Fx equivalent to the 16-80mm lens would seem to be the 24-120mm f/4.

I am interested in the IQ and other features comparing the 16-80mm on a D7200 to a 24-120mm on a D750 or similar.

I did a search but didn't anything on topic. Maybe I missed some threads (I find the search function awkward to use when I want to combine lens focal ranges, etc. I have read that the 24-120mm generates divergent opinions. I've seen comparisons of using the two lenses on a Dx camera which isn't what I am considering.

Any advice or experience appreciated.
 
Due to DX sensor size, the 16-80 will act as equivalent to 24-120mm f4.5-6.3

That doesn't make it sound as good.

It's also more expensive than the 24-120.

Nikon overpriced drastically the 16-80, and it breaks the value proposition of DX.

The 16-80 is a newer lens and is probably better to the frame corners than the 24-120.

I would want the D750+24-120 and give the other setup away.
 
Last edited:
nbirkett said:
I currently have a D7200 with 16-80mm lens as my main lens. I like the quality of the images and the range fits my common travel needs.

I am considering buying a full frame (maybe a D750) as a gift and am thinking about lenses. The Fx equivalent to the 16-80mm lens would seem to be the 24-120mm f/4.

I am interested in the IQ and other features comparing the 16-80mm on a D7200 to a 24-120mm on a D750 or similar.

I did a search but didn't anything on topic. Maybe I missed some threads (I find the search function awkward to use when I want to combine lens focal ranges, etc. I have read that the 24-120mm generates divergent opinions. I've seen comparisons of using the two lenses on a Dx camera which isn't what I am considering.

Any advice or experience appreciated.
Click to expand...
 
I don’t own the 24-120 f4 anymore, I did buy it in a kit with the D750. Its a great lens imo, sharp where it needs to be, reasonable IS, nice contrast, and a great price. I prefer shooting primes in general so sacrificed this lens for a prime, the only down side is distortion at the wide end but it’s certainly no deal breaker, and even the mega pricey 24-70 has distortion.
 
fishy wishy said:
Due to DX sensor size, the 16-80 will act as equivalent to 24-120mm f4.5-6.3
Click to expand...
There's been lots of discussion about this in other threads. The 'equivalence' of the aperture settings applies mainly to Depth of Field issues. I take mainly landscapes, using f/8 or higher and try to get get maximum depth of field. For that purpose, the lens functions well as an f/2.8-4 from the perspective of light collection, shutter speeds, etc. If I wanted narrower DoF for portraits, etc., then the 16-80 does lose something compared to the 24-120mm.
fishy wishy said:
That doesn't make it sound as good.

It's also more expensive than the 24-120.

Nikon overpriced drastically the 16-80, and it breaks the value proposition of DX.
Click to expand...
Yes, price was a big issue for me. I agonized for many months before buying the 16-80mm; at a lower price point, it would have been an easier decision. But, now that I have the lens, I am happy with it's performance.
fishy wishy said:
The 16-80 is a newer lens and is probably better to the frame corners than the 24-120.

I would want the D750+24-120 and give the other setup away.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the adivce. It is a tempting change to make. But, if I change to FX, it does require an up-front expense for camera and the 24-120mm (or something else). My other lenses are Fx compatible (50mm, 70-200mm f/4). The choice, for me to upgrade, might come down to buying a longer telephoto lens (100-400 or 200-500) or macro lens (Sigma 150mm) rather than going with a new system. I'd keep the D7200 anyway because I like the crop factor for telephoto use.
 
Like you, I read a lot of opinions about the 24-120 and was a bit hesitant to pick one up as a "walking around lens" for my D850, but I wanted more reach than provided by the 24-70 that I had been using without having to carry around my 70-200, too.

My interest in the 24-120 was piqued by the quality of work that a photographer by the name of Ming Thein has achieved with this camera/lens combo. His blog writeup about the lens touches on the fact that the first two copies he obtained had issues, but he finally got one that he's happy with and his images bear out what can be accomplished with a good copy of this lens. Seems to be his go to lens on a D850.

When I ran across a used one a couple months ago on Craigslist here in this area, I decided to have a look at it and I'm glad I did. Picked it up for $450 and it's in excellent condition.

When I met the owner, I was able to take some test shots at various apertures and FL's and review them immediately on my Dell XPS15 laptop with a 4K screen. I was very pleasantly surprised with the performance and my shooting since buying it has born out my initial impressions. Yeah, there is some vignetting wide open, some distortion and a little CA, but less than I had expected and nothing that can't be dealt with very easily in PP. Sharpness, color and contrast in real-world shooting are probably as good as you can get in a 5X FF zoom lens.

I would probably have purchased a new one if this used one hadn't popped up.

Cheers!
 
nbirkett said:
I currently have a D7200 with 16-80mm lens as my main lens. I like the quality of the images and the range fits my common travel needs.

I am considering buying a full frame (maybe a D750) as a gift and am thinking about lenses. The Fx equivalent to the 16-80mm lens would seem to be the 24-120mm f/4.

I am interested in the IQ and other features comparing the 16-80mm on a D7200 to a 24-120mm on a D750 or similar.

I did a search but didn't anything on topic. Maybe I missed some threads (I find the search function awkward to use when I want to combine lens focal ranges, etc. I have read that the 24-120mm generates divergent opinions. I've seen comparisons of using the two lenses on a Dx camera which isn't what I am considering.

Any advice or experience appreciated.
Click to expand...
The 16-80 features 4 ED elements, the 24-120 only 2. It would not surprise me if the 24-120 disappointed you in comparison.
 
I bought my D750 with a 24-120 during one of Nikon's sales. And a great bargain it is.

I read a lot of different opinions about the 24-120. Either the lens has a lot of sample variation or people have widely different standards. First, as you have experienced with your 16-80, the focal length range is excellent. You really don't need much else for normal photography. Unfortunately, my 24-120 has poor corner sharpness at all focal lengths and apertures. The middle of the image is just fine. It's good for casual snapshots and people photography but I can't stand it for landscapes, which is where I really wanted to use it; now I have to carry a bunch of primes when I'm out shooting and the load gets heavy after hiking a few miles.

So it's hard for me to recommend the lens.
 
Leonard Migliore said:
I bought my D750 with a 24-120 during one of Nikon's sales. And a great bargain it is.

I read a lot of different opinions about the 24-120. Either the lens has a lot of sample variation or people have widely different standards. First, as you have experienced with your 16-80, the focal length range is excellent. You really don't need much else for normal photography. Unfortunately, my 24-120 has poor corner sharpness at all focal lengths and apertures. The middle of the image is just fine. It's good for casual snapshots and people photography but I can't stand it for landscapes, which is where I really wanted to use it; now I have to carry a bunch of primes when I'm out shooting and the load gets heavy after hiking a few miles.

So it's hard for me to recommend the lens.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear of your poor experience. Do you think that you just had a bad copy?

Other than the 24-120mm, is there another zoom which covers the range and is better? I had an instructor recommend the 28-300mm but his style is towards soft images, not sharp landscapes. The 24-70mm would be too short since I use the 70-120mm range a fair bit (50-80mm on DX).

Primes might be an option but I find them harder to use on hikes and walks than a zoom (and, as you say, a lot of primes can get heavy). With primes I would regularly have to struggle to open my back-pack to find the lens I want. A pack like the Mindshift Gear Rotation might help with that task but I'm not sure it would fit my style. I guess I might get away with three primes: 20/24mm, 50-55mm and 105mm. Or, maybe: 20/24mm, 50mm and 70-200 f/4.
 
nbirkett said:
Leonard Migliore said:
I bought my D750 with a 24-120 during one of Nikon's sales. And a great bargain it is.

I read a lot of different opinions about the 24-120. Either the lens has a lot of sample variation or people have widely different standards. First, as you have experienced with your 16-80, the focal length range is excellent. You really don't need much else for normal photography. Unfortunately, my 24-120 has poor corner sharpness at all focal lengths and apertures. The middle of the image is just fine. It's good for casual snapshots and people photography but I can't stand it for landscapes, which is where I really wanted to use it; now I have to carry a bunch of primes when I'm out shooting and the load gets heavy after hiking a few miles.

So it's hard for me to recommend the lens.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear of your poor experience. Do you think that you just had a bad copy?
Click to expand...
My copy is bad (for my uses). I have no idea what the rest of them are like but there are lots of anecdotes about people getting 3 of them to find a good one.
nbirkett said:
Other than the 24-120mm, is there another zoom which covers the range and is better? I had an instructor recommend the 28-300mm but his style is towards soft images, not sharp landscapes. The 24-70mm would be too short since I use the 70-120mm range a fair bit (50-80mm on DX).
Click to expand...
The "professional" zooms like the 24-70 and 70-200 have very good reputations and corresponding prices. It's easier to make a good 3X zoom than a good 5X zoom.
nbirkett said:
Primes might be an option but I find them harder to use on hikes and walks than a zoom (and, as you say, a lot of primes can get heavy). With primes I would regularly have to struggle to open my back-pack to find the lens I want. A pack like the Mindshift Gear Rotation might help with that task but I'm not sure it would fit my style. I guess I might get away with three primes: 20/24mm, 50-55mm and 105mm. Or, maybe: 20/24mm, 50mm and 70-200 f/4.
Click to expand...
I carry 20mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm f/1.8G lenses along with a 70-300 (and a tripod). The primes are all great while the 70-300 is marginal. I can't take the weight of my 300mm prime along with all the other stuff. Now that you mention it, the 70-200 f/4 sounds like a good idea.
 
I'll tell you what, I'll go out tomorrow morning and shoot a few shots with my lens and post them at full resolution from the D850, SOOC in jpg with no in-camera processing.

That should give you a data point. I don't know if I've got a particularly good copy as I've not tested another one, but I do have a 70-200 f2.8E FL, an 85 f1.8G and a 105 f2.8 VR Macro and if I have time, I could shoot the same shots with those lenses for comparison.

If there is a particular type of scene you'd like to see, let me know. Is there no camera store locally that might have one you can test?

Cheers!
 
Tom Stites said:
I'll tell you what, I'll go out tomorrow morning and shoot a few shots with my lens and post them at full resolution from the D850, SOOC in jpg with no in-camera processing.

That should give you a data point. I don't know if I've got a particularly good copy as I've not tested another one, but I do have a 70-200 f2.8E FL, an 85 f1.8G and a 105 f2.8 VR Macro and if I have time, I could shoot the same shots with those lenses for comparison.

If there is a particular type of scene you'd like to see, let me know. Is there no camera store locally that might have one you can test?
Click to expand...
That's a very kind offer - thank you. I shoot landscapes and cityscapes mainly. But, not many brick walls :-)

As for local testing - I blanked on that option. Dumb :-( Being in Canada, we have limited rental options available. But, I could rent a D750 and 24-120mm lens (about $150 for a weekend). I could get a D810 for about $30 more. But, the D850 isn't available in my city.
 
I would add the following for you to consider. If you buy (new or used) a hi res (36MP+) body with the 24-120, you can as needed shoot in DX mode (or crop) extending the overall coverage of the lens to 24-180mm and still get 15MP images. With the D750 any cropped (DX or post processing) images will lower the res of the images to so-so resolution. And the hi res body will allow full usability for any DX lenses that you own, whereas the D750 will not be as good.
 
I was considering buying a 16-80 from a friend so I borrowed it from him. What sold me on the idea was a shot that I took when a large construction crane was being assembled near my house. I zoomed in on the cab (120’ off the ground) and was able to crop in a way that the 4” high letters on the side of the cab were clearly readable. I was amazed. The camera body is a D7200.
 
I've had my single copy of the 24-120 for about 6 years. Not long after it came out. I've been very pleased with it on my D800e. Are the corners a little softer wide open? Yeah. But that is the case with all lenses, primes included. Stopped down a bit, my 24-120 yields high image quality, virtually on par with my primes. Example attached. I see very little degradation in the corners of this image.







--
Steve
 
Leonard Migliore said:
I bought my D750 with a 24-120 during one of Nikon's sales. And a great bargain it is.

I read a lot of different opinions about the 24-120. Either the lens has a lot of sample variation or people have widely different standards. First, as you have experienced with your 16-80, the focal length range is excellent. You really don't need much else for normal photography. Unfortunately, my 24-120 has poor corner sharpness at all focal lengths and apertures. The middle of the image is just fine. It's good for casual snapshots and people photography but I can't stand it for landscapes, which is where I really wanted to use it; now I have to carry a bunch of primes when I'm out shooting and the load gets heavy after hiking a few miles.

So it's hard for me to recommend the lens.
Click to expand...
I have D7500 but not 16-80mm and I was recently looking at the option of getting FX camera so that I could use the FX advantage of thinner DOF with 24-120mm lens without having to use the primes but I have found that several reviews mentioned corner softness and not so great bokeh with 24-120mm.

So it seems true that what they say about going FX would need much more expensive & heavier lenses such as 24-70mm f/2.8 lens or simply use the primes which I already do with my D7500 so suddenly the grass doesn't seem so green on the other side!
 
Last edited:
Gary Barnett said:
Leonard Migliore said:
I bought my D750 with a 24-120 during one of Nikon's sales. And a great bargain it is.

I read a lot of different opinions about the 24-120. Either the lens has a lot of sample variation or people have widely different standards. First, as you have experienced with your 16-80, the focal length range is excellent. You really don't need much else for normal photography. Unfortunately, my 24-120 has poor corner sharpness at all focal lengths and apertures. The middle of the image is just fine. It's good for casual snapshots and people photography but I can't stand it for landscapes, which is where I really wanted to use it; now I have to carry a bunch of primes when I'm out shooting and the load gets heavy after hiking a few miles.

So it's hard for me to recommend the lens.
Click to expand...
I have D7500 but not 16-80mm and I was recently looking at the option of getting FX camera so that I could use the FX advantage of thinner DOF with 24-120mm lens without having to use the primes but I have found that several reviews mentioned corner softness and not so great bokeh with 24-120mm.

So it seems true that what they say about going FX would need much more expensive & heavier lenses such as 24-70mm f/2.8 lens or simply use the primes which I already do with my D7500 so suddenly the grass doesn't seem so green on the other side!
Click to expand...
What do you think of the bokeh on this shot? It was taken with the 24-120 wide open at f/4 on a D800e.







--
Steve
 
Mach Schnell said:
Gary Barnett said:
Leonard Migliore said:
I bought my D750 with a 24-120 during one of Nikon's sales. And a great bargain it is.

I read a lot of different opinions about the 24-120. Either the lens has a lot of sample variation or people have widely different standards. First, as you have experienced with your 16-80, the focal length range is excellent. You really don't need much else for normal photography. Unfortunately, my 24-120 has poor corner sharpness at all focal lengths and apertures. The middle of the image is just fine. It's good for casual snapshots and people photography but I can't stand it for landscapes, which is where I really wanted to use it; now I have to carry a bunch of primes when I'm out shooting and the load gets heavy after hiking a few miles.

So it's hard for me to recommend the lens.
Click to expand...
I have D7500 but not 16-80mm and I was recently looking at the option of getting FX camera so that I could use the FX advantage of thinner DOF with 24-120mm lens without having to use the primes but I have found that several reviews mentioned corner softness and not so great bokeh with 24-120mm.

So it seems true that what they say about going FX would need much more expensive & heavier lenses such as 24-70mm f/2.8 lens or simply use the primes which I already do with my D7500 so suddenly the grass doesn't seem so green on the other side!
Click to expand...
What do you think of the bokeh on this shot? It was taken with the 24-120 wide open at f/4 on a D800e.

Click to expand...
I just merely pointed out that some reviews mentioned this. I think your picture has reflected this well.

Bokeh meant for background to go soft and without distracting but then again, it is very subjective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
2nd hand Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4 E VR dull colors?
Replies
7
Views
103
GarysInSoCal
GarysInSoCal
Skyevale
2nd hand 'walkabout' and 'wide angle' lens for D750
2
Replies
21
Views
254
monte12345
M
P
Which 35mm lens?
Replies
7
Views
632
chrisD46
C
D
  • Question Question
Do I dump my Z50ii for a Z5ii? Starting to hit some walls
2 3
Replies
45
Views
5K
Superscroll
S
B
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G in 2025
Replies
19
Views
633
Overrank
Overrank

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top